Britain’s biggest business organisations have closed ranks against a wave of antisemitism sweeping the country, with 40 trade bodies and employer groups signing a joint letter pledging to root out anti-Jewish prejudice from the nation’s workplaces.

The intervention, co-ordinated by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), lands at a politically charged moment. It coincides with a stark warning from Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who told MPs in a letter revealed this week that “British Jews are not currently safe in their capital city”, a phrase that has reverberated through Westminster, the City and Britain’s small business community alike.

“We, as leaders from across the UK business community, unreservedly condemn antisemitism in all its forms,” the signatories said in the letter, published by the British Chambers of Commerce. Signatories have agreed to speak up against antisemitism, adopt a zero-tolerance approach to it in the workplace, embed antisemitism within racism and inclusion training, and provide tailored support for Jewish employees.

A rare show of unity fromBbritain’s ‘B5’

The breadth of the coalition is striking. Alongside the BCC and CBI, the letter has been signed by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the Institute of Directors (IoD) and ADS Group, which represents more than 1,700 UK firms in the aerospace, defence, security and space sectors. After three years of public splits between the so-called “B5” business lobby groups, particularly in the wake of the CBI’s 2023 crisis, this is the broadest joint statement the sector has produced on a social policy issue in recent memory.

Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the BCC, said: “The rise in antisemitism is deeply concerning and demands a clear, collective response. This letter is the starting point … by acting together, business can be a powerful force for good.”

Kevin Craven, chief executive of ADS Group, was among those who described antisemitism bluntly as racism and “a daily experience” for Jewish people living and working in Britain.

Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the FSB, and Jonathan Geldart, director-general of the IoD, said they were taking a stand for the “sake of our Jewish colleagues and friends” and for the “health of our society”. Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the CBI, described antisemitism as “abhorrent”, adding: “The breadth of organisations backing this statement reflects the strength of feeling across the business community. Inclusive workplaces are vital for individuals, for businesses and for the success of our economy.”

‘Not currently safe’: Rowley’s warning to MP’s

The corporate intervention follows a sharp deterioration in community safety. Sir Mark Rowley’s letter to MPs on the home affairs select committee referenced “a sustained period of attack” on Jewish Londoners over the past six weeks, including the declaration of a terrorist incident in Golders Green, northwest London, after two men suffered stab wounds just over a fortnight ago. The Met has since launched 11 counter-terrorism investigations and made 35 arrests, while a new 100-strong community protection team has been stood up.

The King met victims of last month’s stabbings the same day Rowley’s warning emerged, a juxtaposition that has sharpened the political pressure on government and on employers to demonstrate visible action rather than mere words.

From boardroom statements to workplace culture

For Business Matters readers, particularly the owner-managers of the UK’s 5.5 million small and medium-sized firms, the practical question is what zero tolerance actually looks like in a payroll of 10, 50 or 250 people. Employment lawyers expect the letter to accelerate three trends already evident in HR departments: the explicit naming of antisemitism within diversity training (rather than its absorption into a generic anti-racism module), the development of complaints procedures sensitive to Jewish identity and religious practice, and tougher action on social media conduct that strays into anti-Jewish stereotypes.

Those shifts dovetail with a wider regulatory direction of travel. Ministers have already used the Employment Rights Bill to ban non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of harassment and discrimination, narrowing the room for employers to settle complaints quietly. Surveys from the sector continue to suggest that British firms are still failing to measure their impact on diversity and inclusion in any meaningful way, a data gap that is likely to come under fresh scrutiny following this week’s declaration.

The letter is part of growing momentum in industry. Peter Kyle, the business secretary, hosted a roundtable on antisemitism with senior business leaders this week. “I’m pleased to see workplaces begin to discuss the action they can take to combat this hatred,” he said. “Businesses have a crucial role to play in facing this challenge head-on.”

A BCC spokesperson described tackling antisemitism in the workplace as a “shared responsibility”, citing concern at the “increased experience” of antisemitism reported by Jewish employees. For owner-managers weighing how to operationalise the pledge, the practical playbook for building diversity, equity and inclusion into SME growth plans offers a useful starting point, but specialists caution that antisemitism, with its distinct history and contemporary tropes, demands its own dedicated lens rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Whether the joint letter marks a genuine inflection point or a familiar cycle of statements followed by drift will be judged by what changes inside the country’s offices, factory floors and shop counters over the coming year. With the Met openly conceding that Britain’s Jewish citizens are not yet safe in their own capital, employers may find that the cost of inaction has rarely been higher.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

This article was written by

Follow

Coffee giant Starbucks is slashing about 300 U.S. support roles and closing some regional support offices.

“We are taking further action under the Back to Starbucks strategy, building on our strong business momentum and working to return the company to durable, profitable growth,” a Starbucks spokesperson said in a statement to FOX Business.

Leaders have taken a hard look at their respective functions to further sharpen focus, prioritize work, reduce complexity, and lower costs. As a result, we’re eliminating approximately 300 U.S. support roles,” the spokesperson said. 

The company is also closing some regional support offices.

“We are streamlining our real estate footprint including consolidating U.S. regional support office space and taking several other steps with leases and lease commitments,” the spokesperson noted.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

NEW YORK — The high-profile $60 million legal war between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has taken a serious emotional and professional toll on both actors, with insiders saying the bitter dispute over the film It Ends With Us has left them exhausted, isolated and navigating intense public scrutiny more than nine months after allegations first surfaced.

Sources close to both parties describe a once-collaborative working relationship that deteriorated into accusations of misconduct, smear campaigns and retaliatory lawsuits, creating what one Hollywood veteran called “one of the messiest public battles in recent memory.” The conflict, which began during production of the 2024 adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel, escalated into federal court filings that continue to dominate tabloid headlines and social media discourse.

Lively, 37, filed a lawsuit in December 2024 accusing Baldoni, 41, and others involved in the project of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment. Baldoni responded with a $60 million countersuit in early 2025, claiming Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds orchestrated a smear campaign to damage his reputation and seize control of the film’s narrative. Both sides have denied the allegations leveled against them, with legal teams trading sharp public statements.

The Human Cost Behind the Headlines

Friends of Lively say the ordeal has been particularly draining as she balances motherhood — the couple shares four children — with the intense media spotlight. “This has affected her deeply,” one close source said. “Blake is a private person at heart, and having every detail of her professional conduct dissected publicly has been incredibly difficult.” Lively has maintained a relatively low profile since the lawsuits intensified, focusing on family while her legal team handles the public-facing aspects of the case.

Baldoni, who directed and starred in the film, has also felt the weight of the battle. Associates describe him as frustrated and determined to clear his name, but exhausted by the financial and emotional strain of prolonged litigation. “Justin poured his heart into this project,” a source familiar with his side said. “The accusations hit him hard, and fighting back has taken a real toll on his mental health and career momentum.”

The legal costs alone are staggering. Industry estimates suggest both parties have already spent millions on attorneys, public relations firms and expert witnesses. The $60 million countersuit figure includes claims of defamation, interference with contractual relations and economic harm, signaling Baldoni’s aggressive push for vindication.

Fallout in Hollywood and Beyond

The dispute has sent ripples throughout the entertainment industry. Several cast members from It Ends With Us have reportedly distanced themselves, with some choosing not to comment publicly. The film’s box office success — it grossed over $350 million worldwide — now feels overshadowed by the off-screen drama, affecting marketing efforts for potential sequels or related projects.

Public opinion remains sharply divided. Supporters of Lively point to the #MeToo movement and the importance of believing women in Hollywood, while Baldoni’s defenders argue that due process matters and that powerful couples like Lively and Reynolds can weaponize media narratives. Social media platforms continue to host heated debates, with hashtags related to the case trending periodically.

Mental health experts following the story note that high-profile legal battles often exacerbate anxiety, depression and reputational trauma for celebrities. “When your personal and professional lives collide in the courtroom, the stress is compounded,” said Dr. Rachel Goldman, a psychologist specializing in celebrity mental health. “Both Lively and Baldoni are in the public eye 24/7, which makes healing much more difficult.”

Legal Proceedings and Next Steps

The case remains active in federal court, with discovery ongoing and multiple motions filed by both sides. Lively’s team has pushed for dismissal of parts of the countersuit, while Baldoni’s attorneys argue that evidence will vindicate their client. A trial date has not yet been set, but insiders expect proceedings to stretch well into 2027, meaning the public saga could continue for years.

Both actors have paused most public promotional work related to the film. Lively has focused on smaller projects and family time, while Baldoni has leaned into his existing podcast and wellness ventures. Neither has spoken extensively about the case beyond prepared legal statements, a strategy their teams believe protects their positions in court.

Broader Implications for Hollywood

The Lively-Baldoni conflict highlights ongoing challenges in the post-#MeToo era. Questions about power dynamics on film sets, the role of intimacy coordinators, and how allegations are handled remain at the forefront. Advocacy groups on both sides of the debate have used the case to push for clearer industry standards and better protections for all parties involved in productions.

For fans of the bestselling book, the drama has tainted what was once a beloved story of resilience and love. Many readers express disappointment that the film’s important message about domestic violence has been overshadowed by the off-screen conflict.

As the legal battle continues, both Lively and Baldoni face the challenge of rebuilding their public images while protecting their families. Insiders say private settlement discussions have occurred but no agreement has been reached, with both sides dug in on matters of principle and reputation.

The $60 million lawsuit represents more than financial stakes — it has become a proxy for larger conversations about accountability, power and truth in Hollywood. For Lively and Baldoni, the personal cost appears far greater than any monetary figure. As one source close to the production summarized, “This fight has drained everyone involved. At this point, both sides just want it to end, but pride and principle keep it going.”

The coming months will likely bring more filings, potential depositions and continued media attention. For now, the two stars navigate their separate paths, forever linked by a film that promised healing but delivered one of Hollywood’s most contentious chapters in recent years. The toll, as those close to the situation confirm, has been profound on both sides.